It's fine to refer to generic mana as a cost. It does exist as an abstract, even if it can't tangibly be created. The key is that 'generic' is not a type of mana but just a description. You could say "any old mana" in reference to a mana cost and your meaning would be clear.
The hard part for me, assuming I'm right about <> mana, will be to start saying "This spell costs a green and 2 generic" rather than "green and 2 colorless" when I'm casually describing a card's mana cost.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander DecksUB Sygg - Stream of Answers UBGWU Phelddagrif - Hugs and Handshakes GWURW Gisela - Firebender RWB Endrek - Correct! 6,000 Thrulls BBU Wrexial - Wrist Deep In Your Graveyard BUGW Trostani - My Wife's Deck GWBR Lyzolda - Chaos Hug BR
WUBRG Reaper King - The Trouble With Tribals WUBRG
I don't want to add to the discussion of the meaning of <>. We just don't know.
Given that, *if* <> means strictly-colorless and nothing else, some wondered if it would become evergreen. I doubt it because:
1. It would basically add a 6th color, design-wise.
2. That would eat up a piece of each set card slots.
3. It would either need to be assigned a piece of the color pie or become a disjointed set of random cards.
4. It would require players to balance their mana base with an additional color. (Especially in limited.)
5. It would make lands like caves of koilos be a kind of three-color land. (With the <> color being pain free!)
In my opinion, all these problem make sense for a single, small set. It would be new, weird and different. For it to be evergreen, it would cause too much pain without bringing anything of substance to Magic. (Plus, whatever people might say, adding the distinction between <> and 1 would be one more thing new players would have to learn. Yes /it makes sense/, but it would be still yet one more thing to grok right-away for new players.)
So, I doubt it will last beyond OGW, others than randomly coming back as a thing in the designer bag of tricks.
I think it'll be interesting to see whether colorless in costs goes evergreen (my vote is on it becoming deciduous, where they can use it if necessary, but won't be in every set), but I'm almost certain that the change to notation and mana production will be permanent.
It's fine to refer to generic mana as a cost. It does exist as an abstract, even if it can't tangibly be created. The key is that 'generic' is not a type of mana but just a description. You could say "any old mana" in reference to a mana cost and your meaning would be clear.
The hard part for me, assuming I'm right about <> mana, will be to start saying "This spell costs a green and 2 generic" rather than "green and 2 colorless" when I'm casually describing a card's mana cost.
Sorry, I can't make myself refer to the new Kozilek as costing 2 colorless and 8 of any old color, or 2 mana that have to be from a colorless source and 8 mana that can be any color. The closest I can get is 2 colorless and 8 of any color, but that still a stretch. i'm going to call it what it is 2 colorless and 8 generic, cause you can't say 2 colorless and 8 colorless, because that will now be wrong.
It's fine to refer to generic mana as a cost. It does exist as an abstract, even if it can't tangibly be created. The key is that 'generic' is not a type of mana but just a description. You could say "any old mana" in reference to a mana cost and your meaning would be clear.
The hard part for me, assuming I'm right about <> mana, will be to start saying "This spell costs a green and 2 generic" rather than "green and 2 colorless" when I'm casually describing a card's mana cost.
Sorry, I can't make myself refer to the new Kozilek as costing 2 colorless and 8 of any old color, or 2 mana that have to be from a colorless source and 8 mana that can be any color. The closest I can get is 2 colorless and 8 of any color, but that still a stretch. i'm going to call it what it is 2 colorless and 8 generic, cause you can't say 2 colorless and 8 colorless, because that will now be wrong.
You could try saying "I'll pay two colorless and eight other mana to cast Kozilek." That satifyies the specific mana indicated in the cost and that you'll be using 8 other mana (any combo of colored or colorless mana) to satisfy the rest of the cost.
besides clearing the confusion thats comes with the current system and opening up new design space
If someone is confused by colorless and generic mana then there really is no hope for that person to be productive is there?
Public Mod Note
(LouCypher):
Warning for Flaming -LouCypher
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
besides clearing the confusion thats comes with the current system and opening up new design space
If someone is confused by colorless and generic mana then there really is no hope for that person to be productive is there?
Not true. This very thread had numerous example of people who were confused. And as they own a computer and internet connection, I presume that they are productive.
besides clearing the confusion thats comes with the current system and opening up new design space
If someone is confused by colorless and generic mana then there really is no hope for that person to be productive is there?
Not true. This very thread had numerous example of people who were confused. And as they own a computer and internet connection, I presume that they are productive.
Thats my point.
If someone doesn't understand why Sol ring can't cast counterspell, but why Azorious signet can cast mindstone. Should we really care about their opinion?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
besides clearing the confusion thats comes with the current system and opening up new design space
If someone is confused by colorless and generic mana then there really is no hope for that person to be productive is there?
Not true. This very thread had numerous example of people who were confused. And as they own a computer and internet connection, I presume that they are productive.
Thats my point.
If someone doesn't understand why Sol ring can't cast counterspell, but why Azorious signet can cast mindstone. Should we really care about their opinion?
If someone doesn't understand why Sol ring can't cast counterspell, but why Azorious signet can cast mindstone. Should we really care about their opinion?
if someone insults new players without any reason, Should we really care about their opinion?
Ok sure if a new player doesn't understand it thats fine.
But for experianced magic players to say "colorless/generic" is confusing. Is just downright laughable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
I think the idea that one diamond is actually two colorless or one eldrazi mana is very plausible. If you look at ulamog from last set, his cost was equal to his power and toughness. Kozilek is supposedly ten but is 12/12 but if both diamonds are two colorless he has a cmc of 12. Not saying that is what it is, just a theory
I think the idea that one diamond is actually two colorless or one eldrazi mana is very plausible. If you look at ulamog from last set, his cost was equal to his power and toughness. Kozilek is supposedly ten but is 12/12 but if both diamonds are two colorless he has a cmc of 12. Not saying that is what it is, just a theory
Actually that's a good point. Don't all 3 original eldrazi and ulamog from BFZ have p/t=cmc? If so it would make sense for <> to be <> or 2. It also explains why mirror pool produces <> and kosileks channeller producers 2
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
I think the idea that one diamond is actually two colorless or one eldrazi mana is very plausible. If you look at ulamog from last set, his cost was equal to his power and toughness. Kozilek is supposedly ten but is 12/12 but if both diamonds are two colorless he has a cmc of 12. Not saying that is what it is, just a theory
Actually that's a good point. Don't all 3 original eldrazi and ulamog from BFZ have p/t=cmc? If so it would make sense for <> to be <> or 2. It also explains why mirror pool produces <> and kosileks channeller producers 2
only emrakul. kozilek was 12/12 for 10, ulamog was 10/10 for 11
besides clearing the confusion thats comes with the current system and opening up new design space
If someone is confused by colorless and generic mana then there really is no hope for that person to be productive is there?
you basicly just insulted lots of new players
you really shouldnt project one's character onto others.
just cause you are expierenced with the game and have no problem with it, doesnt mean others dont have those problems
there is nothing negative about such a change, only positive stuff, so why are you so against it?
New players aren't confused by this, because new players have never heard of the nearly meaningless abstract concept of "generic mana" that only exists in the comprehensive rules and that no one ever says while playing Magic ever.
And if you're concerned about new players, then <> being treated as essentially a 6th colour is the only option. How will new players feel drafting a format where they have lands that tap for <> and spells that require <>, but also lands like the Blighted lands that say they tap for 1 but actually tap for <>? There are a LOT of ways to generate 1 colourless (or 2) in BFZ. If those are suddenly all errata'ed to tap for <> instead, that hurts new players more than anyone and is a good way to turn them off of Magic forever. Initiating a change of that magnitude in a small set is extremely sloppy, and I'd like to think WotC is a better company than that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
I think the idea that one diamond is actually two colorless or one eldrazi mana is very plausible. If you look at ulamog from last set, his cost was equal to his power and toughness. Kozilek is supposedly ten but is 12/12 but if both diamonds are two colorless he has a cmc of 12. Not saying that is what it is, just a theory
Actually that's a good point. Don't all 3 original eldrazi and ulamog from BFZ have p/t=cmc? If so it would make sense for <> to be <> or 2. It also explains why mirror pool produces <> and kosileks channeller producers 2
Um, no? Kozilek, Butcher of Truth costs 10 mana and is a 12/12. Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre costs 11 mana for a 10/10. Soooo yeah, they're the same size as they were last time, and last time neither was the same size as their mana cost. Let's pretend you guys both actually checked gatherer before posting your comments and none of this ever happened at all. That's probably best for everyone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
I think the idea that one diamond is actually two colorless or one eldrazi mana is very plausible. If you look at ulamog from last set, his cost was equal to his power and toughness. Kozilek is supposedly ten but is 12/12 but if both diamonds are two colorless he has a cmc of 12. Not saying that is what it is, just a theory
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!
You would never put that thing on a BASIC mana producing land. Too much rules baggage.
I haven't had a laugh this good since I saw that commercial that said 1 in 4 females don't know how to read a pregnancy test.
Anyway for all the people saying <> means this or <> doesn't mean this(myself included) you all need to realize that until wizards formally announces how <> works everything in this thread is completely and utterly baseless speculation. Everyone who is saying that sol ring and mana rocks and wasteland will me errata to say tap for <> need to shut up and wait till wizards announces it.
What we can do however is say "I think this will happen"
I think <> will just mean <> must be paid for by colourless mana. All they have to do is print a couple of commons with that reminder text and that will clear up any confusion. No need for sol ring and wasteland to be errata. Given that they made Blighted lands and mirror pool in the same block and wizards isn't made up of monkeys I think it's pretty safe to assume they don't intend on replacing [mana]1[mana]. But this is speculation. And anyone who says im wrong needs to realize this is speculation and you too are also wrong.
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
I haven't had a laugh this good since I saw that commercial that said 1 in 4 females don't know how to read a pregnancy test.
Anyway for all the people saying <> means this or <> doesn't mean this(myself included) you all need to realize that until wizards formally announces how <> works everything in this thread is completely and utterly baseless speculation. Everyone who is saying that sol ring and mana rocks and wasteland will me errata to say tap for <> need to shut up and wait till wizards announces it.
What we can do however is say "I think this will happen"
I think <> will just mean <> must be paid for by colourless mana. All they have to do is print a couple of commons with that reminder text and that will clear up any confusion. No need for sol ring and wasteland to be errata. Given that they made Blighted lands and mirror pool in the same block and wizards isn't made up of monkeys I think it's pretty safe to assume they don't intend on replacing [mana]1[mana]. But this is speculation. And anyone who says im wrong needs to realize this is speculation and you too are also wrong.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
I haven't had a laugh this good since I saw that commercial that said 1 in 4 females don't know how to read a pregnancy test.
Anyway for all the people saying <> means this or <> doesn't mean this(myself included) you all need to realize that until wizards formally announces how <> works everything in this thread is completely and utterly baseless speculation. Everyone who is saying that sol ring and mana rocks and wasteland will me errata to say tap for <> need to shut up and wait till wizards announces it.
What we can do however is say "I think this will happen"
I think <> will just mean <> must be paid for by colourless mana. All they have to do is print a couple of commons with that reminder text and that will clear up any confusion. No need for sol ring and wasteland to be errata. Given that they made Blighted lands and mirror pool in the same block and wizards isn't made up of monkeys I think it's pretty safe to assume they don't intend on replacing [mana]1[mana]. But this is speculation. And anyone who says im wrong needs to realize this is speculation and you too are also wrong.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
Perhaps it you don't have <> you need 2 colourless. This is why we need to wait for the reminder text
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
I haven't had a laugh this good since I saw that commercial that said 1 in 4 females don't know how to read a pregnancy test.
Anyway for all the people saying <> means this or <> doesn't mean this(myself included) you all need to realize that until wizards formally announces how <> works everything in this thread is completely and utterly baseless speculation. Everyone who is saying that sol ring and mana rocks and wasteland will me errata to say tap for <> need to shut up and wait till wizards announces it.
What we can do however is say "I think this will happen"
I think <> will just mean <> must be paid for by colourless mana. All they have to do is print a couple of commons with that reminder text and that will clear up any confusion. No need for sol ring and wasteland to be errata. Given that they made Blighted lands and mirror pool in the same block and wizards isn't made up of monkeys I think it's pretty safe to assume they don't intend on replacing [mana]1[mana]. But this is speculation. And anyone who says im wrong needs to realize this is speculation and you too are also wrong.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
Perhaps it you don't have <> you need 2 colourless. This is why we need to wait for the reminder text
People are all over that suggestion, and I have no idea why. As it turns out, {2/<>} would be a viable mana symbol seeing as we've already had {2/B} etc. To create a new mana symbol which is both a new type of mana and also defined as having an alternate cost is beyond insane to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
It's highly likely that the change in templating didn't make it in time for BFZ, or even more likely, it was meant to be in the 3rd set of BFZ block, or M17, but it was then reworked to be a 2 set block, and no more core sets, so they had to shoehorn it into OGW.
I haven't had a laugh this good since I saw that commercial that said 1 in 4 females don't know how to read a pregnancy test.
Anyway for all the people saying <> means this or <> doesn't mean this(myself included) you all need to realize that until wizards formally announces how <> works everything in this thread is completely and utterly baseless speculation. Everyone who is saying that sol ring and mana rocks and wasteland will me errata to say tap for <> need to shut up and wait till wizards announces it.
What we can do however is say "I think this will happen"
I think <> will just mean <> must be paid for by colourless mana. All they have to do is print a couple of commons with that reminder text and that will clear up any confusion. No need for sol ring and wasteland to be errata. Given that they made Blighted lands and mirror pool in the same block and wizards isn't made up of monkeys I think it's pretty safe to assume they don't intend on replacing [mana]1[mana]. But this is speculation. And anyone who says im wrong needs to realize this is speculation and you too are also wrong.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
Perhaps it you don't have <> you need 2 colourless. This is why we need to wait for the reminder text
People are all over that suggestion, and I have no idea why. As it turns out, {2/<>} would be a viable mana symbol seeing as we've already had {2/B} etc. To create a new mana symbol which is both a new type of mana and also defined as having an alternate cost is beyond insane to me.
<> is thicker than B. One uses two characters the other one
Edit: Retract that I'm an idiot. My point still stands. Until wizards says one way or the other EVERYTHING in this thread is complete and utter hearsay
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
<> is thicker than B. One uses two characters the other one
Edit: Retract that I'm an idiot. My point still stands. Until wizards says one way or the other EVERYTHING in this thread is complete and utter hearsay
lol you should have deleted it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The hard part for me, assuming I'm right about <> mana, will be to start saying "This spell costs a green and 2 generic" rather than "green and 2 colorless" when I'm casually describing a card's mana cost.
Sorry, I can't make myself refer to the new Kozilek as costing 2 colorless and 8 of any old color, or 2 mana that have to be from a colorless source and 8 mana that can be any color. The closest I can get is 2 colorless and 8 of any color, but that still a stretch. i'm going to call it what it is 2 colorless and 8 generic, cause you can't say 2 colorless and 8 colorless, because that will now be wrong.
You could try saying "I'll pay two colorless and eight other mana to cast Kozilek." That satifyies the specific mana indicated in the cost and that you'll be using 8 other mana (any combo of colored or colorless mana) to satisfy the rest of the cost.
If someone is confused by colorless and generic mana then there really is no hope for that person to be productive is there?
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
They can change and clarify the rules all they want. People will be people and will still be confused.
Not true. This very thread had numerous example of people who were confused. And as they own a computer and internet connection, I presume that they are productive.
hmm, yeah that would be embarassing
Thats my point.
If someone doesn't understand why Sol ring can't cast counterspell, but why Azorious signet can cast mindstone. Should we really care about their opinion?
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
Yes.
Ok sure if a new player doesn't understand it thats fine.
But for experianced magic players to say "colorless/generic" is confusing. Is just downright laughable.
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
Actually that's a good point. Don't all 3 original eldrazi and ulamog from BFZ have p/t=cmc? If so it would make sense for <> to be <> or 2. It also explains why mirror pool produces <> and kosileks channeller producers 2
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
only emrakul. kozilek was 12/12 for 10, ulamog was 10/10 for 11
New players aren't confused by this, because new players have never heard of the nearly meaningless abstract concept of "generic mana" that only exists in the comprehensive rules and that no one ever says while playing Magic ever.
And if you're concerned about new players, then <> being treated as essentially a 6th colour is the only option. How will new players feel drafting a format where they have lands that tap for <> and spells that require <>, but also lands like the Blighted lands that say they tap for 1 but actually tap for <>? There are a LOT of ways to generate 1 colourless (or 2) in BFZ. If those are suddenly all errata'ed to tap for <> instead, that hurts new players more than anyone and is a good way to turn them off of Magic forever. Initiating a change of that magnitude in a small set is extremely sloppy, and I'd like to think WotC is a better company than that.
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
Um, no? Kozilek, Butcher of Truth costs 10 mana and is a 12/12. Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre costs 11 mana for a 10/10. Soooo yeah, they're the same size as they were last time, and last time neither was the same size as their mana cost. Let's pretend you guys both actually checked gatherer before posting your comments and none of this ever happened at all. That's probably best for everyone.
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!
You would never put that thing on a BASIC mana producing land. Too much rules baggage.
Anyway for all the people saying <> means this or <> doesn't mean this(myself included) you all need to realize that until wizards formally announces how <> works everything in this thread is completely and utterly baseless speculation. Everyone who is saying that sol ring and mana rocks and wasteland will me errata to say tap for <> need to shut up and wait till wizards announces it.
What we can do however is say "I think this will happen"
I think <> will just mean <> must be paid for by colourless mana. All they have to do is print a couple of commons with that reminder text and that will clear up any confusion. No need for sol ring and wasteland to be errata. Given that they made Blighted lands and mirror pool in the same block and wizards isn't made up of monkeys I think it's pretty safe to assume they don't intend on replacing [mana]1[mana]. But this is speculation. And anyone who says im wrong needs to realize this is speculation and you too are also wrong.
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
Perhaps it you don't have <> you need 2 colourless. This is why we need to wait for the reminder text
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
People are all over that suggestion, and I have no idea why. As it turns out, {2/<>} would be a viable mana symbol seeing as we've already had {2/B} etc. To create a new mana symbol which is both a new type of mana and also defined as having an alternate cost is beyond insane to me.
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
It's highly likely that the change in templating didn't make it in time for BFZ, or even more likely, it was meant to be in the 3rd set of BFZ block, or M17, but it was then reworked to be a 2 set block, and no more core sets, so they had to shoehorn it into OGW.
<> is thicker than B. One uses two characters the other one
Edit: Retract that I'm an idiot. My point still stands. Until wizards says one way or the other EVERYTHING in this thread is complete and utter hearsay
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
lol you should have deleted it